I completely fail to see where all this antagonism comes from against the various udev forks and even mdev earlier. Who cares what projects people spend their time on, they are trying to code and implement solutions to problems that other people created for them, and then get derided for fixing the problems. The fact of the matter is that many people don't want to use systemd and want to keep separate /usr, this is a solution to solve this problem.

And where is all this stuff about separate /usr being broken? The whole point of /usr in the first place was for it to be separate. I've never had a problem with separate /usr, things have always worked properly as they should. And yea I know, my system is just so broken that I don't even know it. Well I'd just prefer to stay ignorant about my broken system

A lot of old hands in the OSS world are unhappy with what's happen to the culture. It used to be about duct tape and hacker culture, working around the flaws of corporates OSes and cobbling together desktop software for the fun of it. If you didn't like something, send in a patch or make a friendly fork.

At around the time OSS became a profit center, this started to change. A lot of non-developer users were drawn in, and the emphasis shifted from hackability to "usability." Now there are many people like gregkh asking "why" instead of "why not" whenever you try to do something different, ostensibly because it creates fragmentation.

In the old days, fragmentation was *good* -- it means you had multiple solutions to problems, to suit different tastes. As long as you followed Unix principles there was no problem with interoperability._________________Personal overlay | Simple backup scheme

A lot of old hands in the OSS world are unhappy with what's happen to the culture. It used to be about duct tape and hacker culture, working around the flaws of corporates OSes and cobbling together desktop software for the fun of it. If you didn't like something, send in a patch or make a friendly fork.

Wish it would go back to that, I hate all the corporate/political manipulation.

C++ is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better. If you want to discuss the horror of C++ or how it compares to Go in greater depth, PM me.

I'll add that if you are using C and garbage collection anyway, there's not much wrong with Objective-C.

I like C++, I don't trust any of google's initiatives, so for me it is the other way around._________________Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball

C++ is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better. If you want to discuss the horror of C++ or how it compares to Go in greater depth, PM me.

I'll add that if you are using C and garbage collection anyway, there's not much wrong with Objective-C.

You know, you could say that english is a crime against humanity, so it's quite easy for another language to be better.

And you could reason that it's so horribly misused it's a disaster.

And you could reason that another language does have a totally better foundation and you should just move to that.

And you might find yourself being blindsided when this sounds an aweful lot like the introduction of C++ over C.

English does have ways of being used rather effectively, and it's more so that it's being used in the wrong way than it's mathematically impossible for any idea to be constructed with english -> eh... it's not perfect, but it's not quite that broken.

C++ is not perfect, but it does have a lot of ways to use it effectively for the task at hand.

Don't need runtime exception handling for hello world ->

Code:

gcc --fno-exceptions

-> boom your program went on an epic diet.

Need even smaller? ->

Code:

gcc --fno-exceptions -Os

Don't know what those do? -> realize that is a sign that points to misunderstanding, and frustration from others not understanding yet still using.

I suspect that if you promote simply switching to yet another language, as opposed to concentrating on why it's so misused to begin with, you are going to simply repeat history and after a while people will be complaining about how Go is a crime against humanity -> namely for all the wrong ways it is being used which makes people super pissed that it's even around.

I will agree with you C++ has some technical flaws, yes.

Can they be avoided by changing to another language? Probably.

Can they be corrected by first understanding what mechanism(s) are causing the problem, what controls them in what way, and what configuration/compile options/program design changes can be made to resolve problem? Probably.

Sometimes people forget that C++ is intentially not a purebred language. It's like a multitool. Yeah, you can tighten a screw with the knife blade or you can also use the screwdriver, or you can even attempt a blade-screwdriver hybrid solution but that might take some fingers with it.

Holy crap that was ramble factorial._________________---FourChannel---

I scrolled down through the link.
I fail to understand how discussing the problem nicely,
as it seemed to be being done, is "making the gentoo devs look foolish" or "wannabe's".

One should think given the history of open software that looking foolish
for doing something, that needs doing, is the last thing one should feel.
Who cares what another thinks, they are entitled to their opinion.

I remember when linux first came out, on the minix discussion area,
and I'm sure that some thought that Linus was foolish, but look where it is now.

Because of new virtual/udev in the portage tree blocks this fork installation from the overlay, and gentoo devs unwilling to include this fork into the tree, I had to include virtual/udev into the udev overlay. So, now in order to have everything working you have to mask virtual/udev::gentoo and install virtual/udev::udev.

There are 3 virtual/udev packages (and counting), which I guess the overlay will need to shadow. For something that is supposed to make drop in replacements easy, these virtuals sure do seem to be doing the opposite.

Code:

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=virtual/udev-180[gudev,hwdb]" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- virtual/udev-180::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)

!!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=virtual/udev-180[gudev,hwdb]" have been masked.
!!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your request:
- virtual/udev-180::gentoo (masked by: package.mask)
/etc/portage/package.mask:
# udev overlay

EDIT: And yes, I copy/pasted grey_dots /etc/portage/package.mask entries. I use other */*::gentoo masks, and no problems, so I am think this is maybe something to do with portage logic regarding virtuals + version numbers + overlay.
EDIT2: Either that or the virtual also needs to support the USE flags too. Ideas?

I'm sorry to announce this, but both me and consus decided to abandon the development of this fork. Too much of bad [Mod edit for language. — JRG] code and not enough free time. Repo and overlay will still be accessible.

You can either try to use gentoo devs' fork, stick to an older version, or remove udev completely since most of it's functions are moved to the kernel (I chose the later option).